What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

horsepower on IO540

F

falcon900guy

Well Known Member
is there anyone have a motor producing over 315+ horsepower on a RV10? im not worried about "why would you want more horsepower?". i just want to know if there is anyone who reads this site if they have 315+ HP motor on a RV10?
 
Last edited:
If you got a big check book here is your engine:

The Textron Lycoming aircraft engine model TIO-540-J2BD is a direct drive, six cylinder, fuel injected, horizontally opposed, turbocharged, air cooled engine with up exhaust and cross-flow cylinder heads.

Detail Specifications

350 HP @ 2575 to 15,000 ft.

260 HP @ 2575 to 20,000 ft.

210 HP @ 2200 economy cruise

AiResearch Turbocharger

Automatic Servo Operated Wastegate Turbo Controller

Bendix Fuel Injection & Magneto

Dynamic Crankshaft Counterweights
 
Last edited:
ACE Performance has a motor producing over 350 HP and wanted to talk to someone that has a motor with over 300 HP and how does it operate on the RV10
 
Another opinion

Having almost 2000 hours in RV10's I will tell you that in my opinion all of this extra HP is not needed. I have flown them at altitudes up to 22k' on pretty much a stock engine with 9:1 pistons. I think the RV10 should be equipped for longevity and reliability. It is a traveling machine, not a racer. :)
As an aside, it appears that the hopped p engines don't last as long from the observations I have of the ones I work on.

Vic
 
Your issue isn't HP so much as it is weight. The IO-540 parallel valve engines, which put out between 250 and 260 HP come in at just over 400 lbs. (That weight can differ depending on the accessories installed.) Barrett built up a parallel valve IO-540 for a friend that turned something like 284 on their dyno. Not 300 HP but good enough that he doesn't have to turn off his AC during takeoff.

The angle valve IO-540's, which put out 300 HP can weight up to 70 pounds more. That is a lot of weight on the nose.

That does not mean that you can't have someone pump up a parallel valve IO-540 to over 300 HP. More HP, light weight, is always a good combination, until it comes to the shortened overhaul interval.
 
We have two clean Rockets on our airport, one has a stock 260 hp, the other is a performance build stamped 310 hp. You would not be able to say one had more hp over the other. I read a good article that Barrett wrote on this topic, basically those high stamped numbers are to give the owner something to talk about. Feel good number for the $$$ spent.:D
 
Last edited:
togaflyer said:
If you got a big check book here is your engine:

The Textron Lycoming aircraft engine model TIO-540-J2BD is a direct drive, six cylinder, fuel injected, horizontally opposed, turbocharged, air cooled engine with up exhaust and cross-flow cylinder heads.

Detail Specifications

350 HP @ 2575 to 15,000 ft.

260 HP @ 2575 to 20,000 ft.

210 HP @ 2200 economy cruise
Click to expand...

I fly 2 of those engines in my day job. Pretty complicated to operate, many more limitations than a "standard engine. They run hot, guzzle gas, fragile, and susceptible to abuse. You can see the exhaust glowing red hot at night when you look through the cooling gills on the side of the cowl. I certainly wouldn't put one on my airplane if I had any other option. Don't get me wrong, they are great engines, but overly complex if the power isn't NEEDED. There's actually very few times where I appreciated the turbos, and the same rated power from a normally aspirated engine wouldn't have sufficed. (climbing out of icing conditions at 9000' with full climb power, max continuous and even full power available).

If you really want the power, the IO-720 is probably a more preferred engine for single engine non-FIKI application. I doubt it weighs much more than the TIO-540 with all the extra plumbing.
 
David Z said:
I fly 2 of those engines in my day job. Pretty complicated to operate, many more limitations than a "standard engine. They run hot, guzzle gas, fragile, and susceptible to abuse. You can see the exhaust glowing red hot at night when you look through the cooling gills on the side of the cowl. I certainly wouldn't put one on my airplane if I had any other option. Don't get me wrong, they are great engines, but overly complex if the power isn't NEEDED. There's actually very few times where I appreciated the turbos, and the same rated power from a normally aspirated engine wouldn't have sufficed. (climbing out of icing conditions at 9000' with full climb power, max continuous and even full power available).

If you really want the power, the IO-720 is probably a more preferred engine for single engine non-FIKI application. I doubt it weighs much more than the TIO-540 with all the extra plumbing.
Click to expand...


I strongly disagree. They are as you say outstanding engines, but takeoff, climb and cruise is actually quite simple. There are some really DUMB things in the POH, and yes some operators make a fist of it. Heck look now further than Whyalla Airlines in Australia who had a well publicised accident. Maybe the folk who you work for or trained you are like 90% of the folk who fly them. It is not your fault.

Once you apply science as it really is not the Old Wives Tales they are simple. They do however deserve a good engine monitor, JPI, Auracle or similar.

If you would really like to see how well they run and learn a lot more book in for the class in March in Ada. Much of the data and video dyno runs come from that exact engine. Courtesy of coronial enquiries and George Braly slaying the myths for the coroner. www.advancedpilot.com

Disclaimer: I do run the APS classes in Australia however I have no motive for profit here or in the USA. The class is the best value education in aviation ever. :)
 
They are wonderfully dependable engines, but more complex to operate than an IO-320 through IO-540 or even a PT-6.

An engine that pushes ~45" on take-off, and cruises at a higher MP than atmosphere is under a lot more stress than a normally aspirated engine, and requires more care to operate. It's not a turbo-compound R-3350, but it's not a O-320 either.

Take-off, climb, cruise, etc isn't difficult, but you can't convince me it's as simple as a O-320 or O-540
 
Darwin goes hunting again

falcon900guy said:
is there anyone have a motor producing over 315+ horsepower on a RV10? im not worried about "why would you want more horsepower?". i just want to know if there is anyone who reads this site if they have 315+ HP motor on a RV10?
Click to expand...

https://youtu.be/PP2bJcu85ho

There are a few RV10's with the LS 1 corvette engine rated at well over 340HP. The LS9 is the supercharged Z06 corvette engine rated at 650 HP, and it is still a small block in the same weight class, with the same motor mounts and bell housing bolt circle.

The LS9 has been used in at least one Seabee amphibian with a 4 blade MT prop for easy water takeoffs above 9000 ft ASL. Robinson Aircraft have an STC for the LS engines into the Seabee. I doubt the RV 10 has enough control surface authority to handle a 650HP take off, however, if used at 400HP and lower it might stand a chance of a reasonable service life.

Lycon also has built IO 540's for Sean Tucker dynoed at over 400HP and one for John Harmon for an HR III.

Like Vic said in post#4, the RV 10 does best as designed with a 235 -250HP 540.

If you want more performance than a 10 has with a stock 540, the TBM 850 is likely the safest bet.

Best of Luck
 
Last edited:
I am currently building a 10, I have built a LYCOMING IO 540 K1A5 for it as well. This is a angle valve 540 out of a Cherrokee six and was rated at 300 hp stock. I was looking for more hp than 260 but I did not want to deal with a hot Rod engine. I will install light weight components to help keep the weight in check.
 
Gary, I am waiting to weigh the engine to see where I will be and then go from there. The engine will not have slot of the original equipment on it. The weight will be less, but will it be close to a fully equipped parallel valve engine? I am looking for a scale now to get the info.
 
Comparable wts

All things being equal I think you are looking at about 70 lb difference if I recall the wts correctly

Gary
 
Horsepower

I too am curious about the ACE engine, 310-315hp 370 lbs? Looks fantastic and built to run on pump gas, I also am building a 10 and see no disadvantage to more HP when it weighs in less than a standard engine! Fortunately I have some time before I need an engine and I'm trying to follow the ACE engine to see if it's a hit or a miss! I've been a motor head my whole life and there are lots of issues turbo charging air cooled engines that I would not be willing to do relative to longevity!
 
M60Marty said:
I too am curious about the ACE engine, 310-315hp 370 lbs? Looks fantastic and built to run on pump gas, I also am building a 10 and see no disadvantage to more HP when it weighs in less than a standard engine! Fortunately I have some time before I need an engine and I'm trying to follow the ACE engine to see if it's a hit or a miss! I've been a motor head my whole life and there are lots of issues turbo charging air cooled engines that I would not be willing to do relative to longevity!
Click to expand...

That last piece is interesting. A properly configured Turbo Normalised IO540 would be no problem in terms of longevity, but squeezing 310HP on mogas might well be more of a problem.

YMMV :)
 
Is there an available exhaust system for the ACE or the angle valve engine thjat fits in the cowling and doesn't burn it?
 
gammaxy said:
The builder addressed that incident on this forum, repaired it and continued flying it. His most recent post is from 2013.


http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?p=343301#post343301
Click to expand...

Excellent! Glad to hear no one was hurt..

Slowpoke said:
have built a LYCOMING IO 540 K1A5
Click to expand...

As in you purchased engine parts and built the engine yourself? I have pondered this as a cost saving technique but not sure if you actually save money that way or not..

Also, I'm not sure I understand the need for more than what a standard O-540 (or IO540).. Having ridden in a couple different RV-10s with a standard engine on it, they seem to have ample power.

What does adding all this extra horse power really get you?
 
My reason for going with the angle valve was the engine was available and more hp on lower compression. Cruise most likely will not be much more, if I feel like paying for it, should climb better. A Rocket does not Need a 540 but I would not want it any other way. :D
 
I hesitate to interject reality into these sorts of conversations, but in the spirit of productive discourse, I suppose I should offer up the real world observation that climb rates in the RV-10 are often limited by the ability to reject heat. Cooling seems to vary from one aircraft to another, but I doubt that any stock RV-10 is capable of a sustained max power sea level climb at Vy under adverse conditions, i.e. very hot weather. It appears that many can not perform a sustained max performance climb in any sort of warm weather. Not a big deal for the most part, drop the nose a bit, lose a little bit of climb but pick up speed and cooling air, and you are good. But with regards to this conversation, adding more horsepower to the airframe will only buy a higher climb rate if modifications are made to increase cooling. In cruise, the increased cooling drag will result in an airspeed penalty, unless you engineer a variable exit. Thinking about how airspeed scales with power and drag, you could end up with an airplane that doesn't perform any better than a stock aircraft.
 
aturner said:
I hesitate to interject reality into these sorts of conversations, but in the spirit of productive discourse, I suppose I should offer up the real world observation that climb rates in the RV-10 are often limited by the ability to reject heat. Cooling seems to vary from one aircraft to another, but I doubt that any stock RV-10 is capable of a sustained max power sea level climb at Vy under adverse conditions, i.e. very hot weather. It appears that many can not perform a sustained max performance climb in any sort of warm weather. Not a big deal for the most part, drop the nose a bit, lose a little bit of climb but pick up speed and cooling air, and you are good. But with regards to this conversation, adding more horsepower to the airframe will only buy a higher climb rate if modifications are made to increase cooling. In cruise, the increased cooling drag will result in an airspeed penalty, unless you engineer a variable exit. Thinking about how airspeed scales with power and drag, you could end up with an airplane that doesn't perform any better than a stock aircraft.
Click to expand...

Good point and I always wonder why RV guys seem so adverse to adding a few ounces of weight for a cable and a cowl flap to increase climb cooling and add a few knots in cruise...
 
It is all up to the person building and their mission. I size does not fit all, be happy for each other and what you have in common.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top